DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Efonukmp** · 10-08-2008, 08:19 PM

snip ....in many instances what ec stated in his readings meshed with the bible perfectly, such as reincarnation. snip i have studied the ra material and found many things that make sense as well. i am sure it all fits together somehow like a big jigsaw puzzle.

hi, jon, you will be happy to notice that today i'm a much improved and mellower bbb

concerning your statement above: reincarnation is a concept condemed as a rank heresy by all major christian denominations -- which of course means that it does not mesh with the bible as interpreted by an early church council ( "it is given to man once to die then comes the judgment" ) earlier i wrote that the ra had to handle cayce very carefully -- because of his christian mind-set the doctrine of reincarnation was "off the table" until much later; if it had been introduced too soon in the relationship cayce would have considered the contact to be demonically anti-christian and would have cut off any communication. (it has been speculated that cayce had some mormon neighbors who might have had some minor influence on of his views.)

as i remember ( albeit from some 50 years ago) cayce attempted some editing of the new testament with the goal of bringing both sets of material into harmony... a task that joseph smith tried to pull off in regards to his own particular theological abberations. it was a study in futility.

to have a better idea of what may be misleading with orthodoxy it is important to go back to the old testament and discover its roots.

(i keep repeating this suggestion, so please forgive me.) jon, please google scott mandelker and check out his essays on east/west studies of gnostic doctrines. basically, jehovah, (he who comes) was a benevolent minded group who wanted to speed up the spiritual evolution of a struggling "race" of demoralized rag-tags. although meant well, this effort to kick-start them back-fired and was abandoned. later the jehovah identity was usurped by a negative polarity group (orions?) who moved in and put their own spin on the revived project. that is why the resulting torah became a confusing mixture of positive and cleverly disguised negative material.... designed to gain thought-control of a whole populace. the fall-out from the dark shadow of the ot does effect key elements in the markedly "brighter" new testament.

and, yes, jon, i did think you were being markedly controversial.

in the rules of participation for this forum there is allowed critical examination of contested interpretations of derived doctines, but it is assumed that the postee does understand and accepts the basic validity of the ra material. the forum is not meant to serve as a battlegound sideshow featuring futile apologetics in the defense of given principles against agenda-driven proselyters,trolls, flamers, and assorted negative intellectuals who thrive on creating spiritual anarchy.

but now i assume your heart is in the right place:d...but go read mandelker! please!

my very best... bill g aka bbb

ps the ra states that a requirement of 4d is that one realizes that he/she doesn't really understand anything. so with that disclaimer in mind do take all of my "preachy" comments above with a grain of salt!

10-08-2008, 08:19 PM	#23
Efonukmp Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 461 Senior Member	snip ....in many instances what ec stated in his readings meshed with the bible perfectly, such as reincarnation. snip i have studied the ra material and found many things that make sense as well. i am sure it all fits together somehow like a big jigsaw puzzle. hi, jon, you will be happy to notice that today i'm a much improved and mellower bbb concerning your statement above: reincarnation is a concept condemed as a rank heresy by all major christian denominations -- which of course means that it does not mesh with the bible as interpreted by an early church council ( "it is given to man once to die then comes the judgment" ) earlier i wrote that the ra had to handle cayce very carefully -- because of his christian mind-set the doctrine of reincarnation was "off the table" until much later; if it had been introduced too soon in the relationship cayce would have considered the contact to be demonically anti-christian and would have cut off any communication. (it has been speculated that cayce had some mormon neighbors who might have had some minor influence on of his views.) as i remember ( albeit from some 50 years ago) cayce attempted some editing of the new testament with the goal of bringing both sets of material into harmony... a task that joseph smith tried to pull off in regards to his own particular theological abberations. it was a study in futility. to have a better idea of what may be misleading with orthodoxy it is important to go back to the old testament and discover its roots. (i keep repeating this suggestion, so please forgive me.) jon, please google scott mandelker and check out his essays on east/west studies of gnostic doctrines. basically, jehovah, (he who comes) was a benevolent minded group who wanted to speed up the spiritual evolution of a struggling "race" of demoralized rag-tags. although meant well, this effort to kick-start them back-fired and was abandoned. later the jehovah identity was usurped by a negative polarity group (orions?) who moved in and put their own spin on the revived project. that is why the resulting torah became a confusing mixture of positive and cleverly disguised negative material.... designed to gain thought-control of a whole populace. the fall-out from the dark shadow of the ot does effect key elements in the markedly "brighter" new testament. and, yes, jon, i did think you were being markedly controversial. in the rules of participation for this forum there is allowed critical examination of contested interpretations of derived doctines, but it is assumed that the postee does understand and accepts the basic validity of the ra material. the forum is not meant to serve as a battlegound sideshow featuring futile apologetics in the defense of given principles against agenda-driven proselyters,trolls, flamers, and assorted negative intellectuals who thrive on creating spiritual anarchy. but now i assume your heart is in the right place:d...but go read mandelker! please! my very best... bill g aka bbb ps the ra states that a requirement of 4d is that one realizes that he/she doesn't really understand anything. so with that disclaimer in mind do take all of my "preachy" comments above with a grain of salt!
	Quote